In Janus v. AFSCME, the court will decide the constitutionality of state statutes allowing public sector employers and unions to agree that employees who don’t join the union must still pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs. More than 20 states authorize fair share for public sector employees.

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1997) the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent “agency shop” arrangements where public employees who do not join the union are still required to pay their “fair share” of union dues for collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance-adjustment. The rationale for an agency fee is that the union may not discriminate between members and nonmembers in performing these functions. So no free-riders are allowed.

Why is only Justice Gorsuch’s vote likely at play in this case?

In 2016 right before Justice Scalia died the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which raised the same question as Janus. The Court ultimately issued a 4-4 decision in that case which, practically speaking, kept Abood on the books.

We don’t know how each justice voted in Friedrichs, but it’s not difficult to guess.

Subscribe to CitiesSpeak

Get the essential news and tools for city leadership, delivered daily by email.

Email Address

In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court refused to extend Abood to Medicaid home health care providers because they aren’t “full-fledged” public employees. Justice Alito’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, was very critical of Abood discussing at length its “questionable analysis.” Justice Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, included a lengthy and vigorous defense of Abood.

Regardless of Justice Gorsuch’s silence during the argument, two facts about him weigh in favor of him voting that “fair share” laws are unconstitutional. First, while he hasn’t ruled in many cases yet, he has so far usually sided with the more conservative Justices. Second, voting to overturn precedent is a big deal for any Justice — and a new Justice in particular. But while on the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch wasn’t shy about criticizing Supreme Court precedent.

The argument otherwise went mostly as expected. The more liberal justices questioned the attorneys arguing in favor of overruling Abood about what other precedent might be vulnerable if the case is overruled, whether it is appropriate for the Court to overrule a decades-old case relied on by numerous state legislatures and local governments, and whether it is makes sense to drain the resources of a union which helps make them an equal partner with management at the bargaining table.

The more conservative justices questioned the attorneys favoring keeping Abood about whether the government compelling speech (here compelling public employees to pay union dues) is worse than the government restricting speech and whether the subject matter unions typically bargain over (like wages) are a political matter. The argument dispelled any notion Justice Kennedy might waiver in his support of overrulingAbood.

The tensest moment of the argument was when Justice Sotomayor asked the U.S. Solicitor General, who argued in favor of overturning Abood, how many times the United States has “flipped positions [in cases] this term.”

Agency fee is a foundational principle for public sector collective bargaining in the United States. Unions in agency fee states receive significant funding as all union-eligible employees must pay their “fair share” of union dues. Overturning Abood will be a major change in the law and will weaken public sector unions.

About the author: Lisa Soronen is the executive director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), which files Supreme Court amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Big Seven national organizations, including the National League of Cities, representing state and local governments. She is a regular contributor to CitiesSpeak.